1. No category

The Family Tax Cut
Ottawa, Canada
17 March 2015
www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca
The Family Tax Cut
The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) is to provide independent analysis to
Parliament on the state of the nation’s finances, the government’s estimates and trends in the
Canadian economy; and upon request from a committee or parliamentarian, to estimate the
financial cost of any proposal for matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction.
Prepared by: Tim Scholz and Trevor Shaw
The authors thank PBO colleagues for comments. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
Please contact Mostafa Askari (email: mostafa.askari@parl.gc.ca) for further information.
i
The Family Tax Cut
Executive Summary
The Family Tax Cut (FTC), commonly referred to as
income splitting, permits a spouse to notionally
transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to a
spouse facing a lower federal tax rate.
The FTC changes marginal effective wages,
influencing labour supply decisions within eligible
households. The labour supply is a key determinant
of an economy’s underlying productive capacity and
a driver of economic growth.
Federal tax rates increase incrementally with
income so, in general, a higher earning partner
(primary earner) notionally transfers income to their
lower earning partner (the secondary earner) to
generate FTC gains.
Primary earners benefit from higher marginal
effective wages. They respond by increasing their
labour supply by 7,000 full-time annual equivalents
(FTEs) and $360 million in labour income.
Secondary earners face lower marginal effective
wages and reduce their labour supply by 14,000
FTEs and $450 million in income (Figure S-2).
FTC benefits are restricted to households with
children under age 18, to an upper limit of $2,000 in
reduced tax per household, per year.
Overall, PBO projects that the FTC results in a small
net reduction in the labour supply of about 7,000
FTEs and a $90 million decline in labour income.
These net effects represent less than 0.04 per cent
of the total hours of labour supplied and less than
0.01 per cent of total employment income.
PBO projects that the FTC will reduce government
revenues by about $2.2 billion in 2015.
The FTC benefits about 2 million households, or
15 per cent of the Canadian total. Middle and
middle-high income households benefit most
because they are more likely to have a family
income and income tax structure conducive to FTC
gains (Figure S-1).
Figure S-2: Family Tax Cut labour supply impacts
20
15
Figure S-1: Family Tax Cut distributional impacts
Per cent of net income (LHS)
1,000
750
13
360
Per cent eligible (RHS)
10
30
5
250
0
0
0.4
FTC Gains (all
households)
7
500
-5
0.3
FTC Eligibility
Likelihood
20
-250
-10
0.2
-15
-14
-20
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Secondary Earners
Wage Change (per cent, median earner, LHS)
Hours Change (thousands of annual FTEs, LHS)
Earnings Change (millions $, RHS)
0
1
10
Income Decile
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
1
-750
-1,000
Primary Earners
0.1
0.0
-500
-10 -450
The Family Tax Cut
1
What is the fiscal impact of the Family Tax
Cut?
Box 1-1: What is the Family Tax Cut?
The Family Tax Cut, commonly referred to as
income splitting, permits a spouse to notionally
transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to a
spouse facing a lower federal tax rate. Federal tax
rates increase incrementally with income so, in
general, a higher earning partner (the primary
earner) will notionally “transfer” income to their
lower earning partner (the secondary earner) to
generate FTC gains.
PBO estimates the Family Tax Cut, (FTC) will have a
net fiscal impact of $2.2 billion in 2015.1,2 This
amount accounts for effects on revenues and
expenses for the federal government and accounts
for taxpayer response to FTC-generated changes in
effective tax rates.
Unlike pension income splitting, where income is
actually transferred between partners on the
federal tax form, the FTC is calculated through a
notional income transfer.
The figure below illustrates a simulated household
with $130,000 in taxable income: with $100,000
earned by the primary earner and $30,000 by the
secondary. Without the FTC, the primary earner
faces a federal tax rate of 26 per cent on the last
dollar of income, while the secondary earner has a
federal tax rate of 15 per cent. The household
owes $23,980 in federal tax.
It is delivered as a federal non-refundable credit and
thus, does not directly affect the taxable income
base for provincial income taxes or federal and
provincial benefits. PBO projects the FTC to have a
negligible impact on provincial revenues.3
Finance Canada calculates the federal fiscal impacts
of the FTC at $1.935 billion. Differences arise from
model assumptions and estimation differences.4
35%
30%
MTR = 26%
25%
20%
MTR = 15%
15%
Income = $30,000
Taxes = $4,500
ATR = 15%
10%
5%
Income = $100,000
Taxes = $19,480
ATR = 19.5%
0%
0
1
50,000
100,000
150,000
With the FTC, the household calculates total taxes
using the same $130,000 household income, but
simulated as two taxpayers, each making $65,000.
Their federal tax in this simulation would be
$22,440, or $1,540 less than otherwise payable
without the FTC. The primary earner can claim this
amount as a FTC credit, which is then subtracted
from their federal taxes payable. FTC benefits
cannot exceed $2,000 in reduced tax per
household.
The FTC takes effect, retroactively, for the 2014 tax year onward.
2
This analysis is based on Statistics Canada's Social Policy Simulation
Database and Model. The assumptions and calculations underlying the
simulation results were prepared by the authors and the responsibility
for the use and interpretation of these data is entirely that of the
authors.
3
Examples of federal and provincial benefits and tax credits unaffected
by the FTC include the GST/HST credit, the Canada Child Tax Benefit and
the age amount.
4
Finance Canada estimates are provided on a fiscal year (April 2015 to
March 2016), rather than tax year (January to December 2015) basis
http://www.fin.gc.ca/n14/data/14-155_1-eng.asp. Accessed March
2015.
2
The Family Tax Cut
2
Who is affected?
gains are averages for both affected and unaffected
households.
The FTC affects a relatively narrow subset of
beneficiaries, about 2 million households, or 15 per
cent of the Canadian total.
Figure 2-2: Family Tax Cut: Distributional impact
Per cent of after-tax income
Three key eligibility criteria lead to this result:
0.4
(i) the FTC is limited to married or common-law
individuals;
0.3
(ii) the FTC is limited to individuals with children
under the age of 18; 5 and,
0.2
(iii) in practice, the FTC benefits only those
households with a disparity in effective
federal income tax rates applicable on the
primary and secondary earners, as illustrated
in Box 1-2.
0.1
0.0
1
In FTC-eligible families, primary earners
predominantly work full-time hours and have a
gross wage rate that is roughly double that of
secondary earners (Table 2-1).
Secondary
Earners
Individuals Impacted
In Labour Force
Annual Income
(median)
Weekly Hours (median)
1,980,000
1,970,000
1,980,000
1,590,000
75,000
25,000
40
29
Hourly Wage (median)
36
18
% Part-time
3%
31%
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Income decile
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Total benefits per income decile are contingent on
both the likelihood of eligibility for FTC benefits and
the average benefits received by eligible households
(Figure 2-3).
Table 2-1: Family Tax Cut: Descriptive statistics
Primary
Earners
2
Figure 2-3: Family Tax Cut: Eligibility
Per cent of after-tax income
Total Gains = Gains (if eligible) x Eligibility Likelihood
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
The FTC benefits medium- through high-income
households primarily because they are more likely
to have a family income and income tax structure
conducive to FTC gains.
Sources: Parliamentary Budget Officer; The Social Policy Simulation
Database and Model (SPSD/M) v. 21.
The largest FTC gains are realized by households in
the 80th income decile, with average gains of about
0.4 per cent of after-tax income (Figure 2-2). These
FTC eligibility rates for households in the bottom 20
per cent of income are near zero. On the other
hand, about 27 per cent of households in the 80th
percentile of income and better are projected to
benefit from the FTC (Figure 2-4).
5
For parents with joint custody arrangements, both custodial parents
can claim the credit for the year, provided the parent has an eligible
spouse or common-law partner. In these cases, two households can
benefit from the credit.
3
The Family Tax Cut
However, if eligible, households in the fourth to
sixth income deciles are projected to receive larger
gains as a share of after tax income than higher- and
lower-income counterparts.
Figure 2-4: Family Tax Cut: Distributional impacts
Per cent of after-tax income
2.5
30
FTC Gains (all
households)
2.0
FTC Gains (if
eligible)
1.5
Gains are distributed differently across family
income structures, dependent on the incomes of
both primary and secondary earners.
20
FTC Eligibility
Likelihood
1.0
The highest per family gains are concentrated
among those with high primary incomes and
relatively low secondary incomes (See the bottomleft corner of Figure 2-5). Households with relatively
balanced taxable earnings between spouses receive
relatively lower FTC benefits, all else equal.
10
0.5
0.0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Note:
Average FTC gains for the first two income deciles are not
depicted because small sample size prohibits a statistically
reliable measurement. Amounts are not expected to be
fiscally material.
4
The Family Tax Cut
Figure 2-5: Distribution of average benefits by family taxable income structure, eligible households only (dollars)
0-10
250
10-20
180
20-30
440
260
330
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30-40
830
370
340
390
-
-
-
-
-
-
40-50
1,290
290
180
180
120
-
-
-
-
-
50-60
1,760
740
640
550
160
-
-
-
-
-
60-70
1,920
1,370
1,230
700
160
-
-
-
-
-
70-80
1,920
1,870
1,370
650
190
-
-
-
-
-
80-90
1,920
1,930
1,390
670
180
-
-
-
-
-
90-100
1,930
1,940
1,560
860
260
170
230
190
140
-
100+
1,920
1,940
1,830
1,670
1,370
1,200
1,120
850
470
630
Primary Income (thousands of dollars)
0-20
20-30
-
Secondary Income (thousands of dollars)
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
-
70-80
-
80-90
-
90+
-
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Primary Income (thousands of dollars)
Figure 2-6: Distribution of total benefits by family taxable income structure (millions of dollars)
0-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
100+
Total
0-10
15
80
140
150
140
115
90
85
250
1,065
10-20
5
5
15
40
85
65
35
25
110
385
20-30
5
35
60
40
35
30
105
310
Secondary Income (thousands of dollars)
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
5
40
5
30
5
30
5
20
5
20
5
5
70
55
60
30
215
80
65
30
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
5
70-80
30
30
80-90
15
15
90+
25
25
Total
20
85
165
270
320
255
185
170
750
2,220
The Family Tax Cut
3
How are eligible households affected?
earner’s marginal effective wage by 10 per cent,
from $11.70 an hour to $10.60 an hour (Figure 3-3).
FTC reduces average household taxes uniformly…
For all eligible households, the FTC reduces the
amount of federal income taxes payable. Since the
FTC is implemented by allowing primary earners to
deduct the credit from final taxes owing, it directly
reduces the primary earner’s average effective tax
rate (AETR). For the median household, the AETR
declines by 0.8 percentage points.
Box 3-2
Average and marginal effective tax rates and
wages
A worker’s average effective wage is inversely
proportional to their average effective tax rate
(AETR). For most workers, the tax deductions on
their pay cheque divided by their gross pay would
roughly correspond with their AETR.
But marginal tax rates are affected differently for
primary and secondary earners
(
Similarily, a worker’s marginal effective wage on an
additional hour worked is inversely proportional to
their marginal effective tax rate (METR). For many
workers, this would roughly correspond to the
highest income tax bracket reached during the year.
In Canada’s progressive income tax structure, higher
income individuals generally face higher marginal
effective tax rates (METR). (See Box 1-1 on page 2
for an illustration).
Thus, the FTC (notionally) affects the taxable income
of both partners in an affected household. In the
FTC benefits calculation, transferred income
decreases the primary earner’s taxable income and
METR, and increases the secondary earner’s taxable
income and METR.
(
Source:
Status Quo
FTC
30
25
Table 3-1: Family Tax Cut: Marginal effective tax rates
22.7
20.1
15
Per cent, median earner
Primary
Secondary
Parliamentary Budget Officer.
$/hour, median earner
20
FTC
36%
36%
)
Figure 3-3: Change in marginal effective wage
In a household with an even (notional) split of
income, the METR will converge for both partners
(Table 3-1). For the median household, the FTC will
decrease the primary earner’s METR by 7
percentage points, and increase the secondary
earner’s METR by 7 percentage points.
Status Quo
43%
29%
)
Change
-7 p.p.
+7 p.p.
11.7
10.6
10
5
Sources: Parliamentary Budget Officer; The Social Policy Simulation
Database and Model (SPSD/M) v. 21. The above rates are
inclusive of federal and provincial taxes net of transfers for
working individuals.
0
Primary Earner
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Lower (higher) METRs directly affect the marginal
effective wage. PBO estimates that the FTC
increases the median primary earner’s marginal
effective wage by 13 per cent, from $20.10 an hour
to $22.70 an hour. It reduces the median secondary
6
Secondary Earner
The Family Tax Cut
4
What are the broader labour supply effects?
Figure 4-1: FTC impact on labour supply
PBO projects that the FTC has a small negative
impact on total labour supply.
Hours Change (thousands of annual FTEs, LHS)
Earnings Change (millions $, RHS)
20
The FTC directly affects marginal effective wages,
which are a key determinant of a worker’s decision
about how much labour to supply. Numerous
economic studies have found that workers respond
to changes in marginal effective wages by adjusting
hours, effort or their participation in the labour
force entirely.6 The labour supply is a key
determinant of an economy’s underlying productive
capacity and a driver of economic growth.7
600
360
15
10
450
7
300
5
150
0
0
-5
-150
-10
-300
-15
PBO projects that higher marginal effective wages
under the FTC induce primary earners to increase
their labour supply by 7,000 full-time annual
equivalents (FTEs), resulting in about $360 million in
additional income (Figure 4-1).8
-14
-20
Primary Earners
-450
-450
-600
Secondary Earners
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Figure 4-2: FTC impacts as a share of aggregate hours
and labour income
Conversely, secondary earners, who face lower
marginal effective wages, reduce their labour supply
by 14,000 FTEs. This corresponds to about $450
million in reduced labour income. A key driver of
this result is the greater responsiveness of
secondary earners to wage changes.
Percentage of total hours supplied, total labour income
Hours
0.10
0.05
Overall, PBO projects that the FTC leads to a small
net reduction in total labour supply of about 7,000
full-time annual equivalents, and a decline of about
$90 million in labour income. These net effects
represent less than 0.04 per cent of the total hours
of labour supplied and less than 0.01 per cent of
total employment income (Figure 4-2).
0.04
Income
0.04
0.00
-0.05
-0.05
-0.07
-0.10
Primary Earners
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer
6
For a summary see the Organization of Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), 2011 “The Effects of Taxation on Employment: An
Overview”.
7
Annual hours worked by individuals are a key component of PBO’s
trend labour input which is used for estimating potential GDP. PBO,
2010. “Estimating Potential GDP and the Government’s Structural
Budget Balance.” http://www.pbodpb.gc.ca/files/files/Publications/Potential_CABB_EN.pdf. Accessed
March 2015.
8
PBO defines one full-time equivalent (FTE) as equal to 35 hours * 52
weeks, or 1,820 hours per year.
7
Secondary Earners
The Family Tax Cut
This microanalysis presents a static impact of the
FTC on labour supply decisions at a given point in
time and should not be considered a comprehensive
forecast of the change in actual hours worked in the
economy. The latter is determined by the forces of
labour supply and demand, including adjustments to
gross wage rates and aggregate demand.
Given this caveat, PBO considers these estimates of
labour supply impacts to be a best estimate of
potential outcomes. Sensitivity analysis is included
in Annex A and an explanation of methodological
assumptions is included in Annex B.
8
The Family Tax Cut
Annex A – Sensitivity Analysis
PBO estimates are sensitive to the following
specifications and assumptions:
The cap also affects the labour supply decision
within households, because the METR is not
affected for each spouse within a capped
household. 9
(i) the regulatory limit of $2,000 in tax savings
and a $50,000 transfer of income under the
FTC; and,
Therefore, PBO assumes that if the primary earner is
capped under the FTC before or after their
respective labour supply response, there is no
labour supply response by the secondary earner.
Labour supply estimates in section 3 incorporate the
FTC cap.
(ii) the relative responsiveness to changes in
METRs (or the uncompensated wage
elasticity) of primary and secondary earners.
In general, PBO’s estimate of the net impact of the
FTC on labour income is more sensitive than that of
hours worked.
PBO estimates that about one-third of households
are capped after including projected labour supply
responses (Table A-2).
Effect of FTC $2,000 benefits cap and $50,000
transfer limit
Table A-2: Capped households
Number of households
Once a household reaches $2,000 in tax savings or a
$50,000 transfer of income under the FTC, it is no
longer eligible to continue to receive the credit
(hereafter referred to as “capped’). These limits
reduce the fiscal impact of the FTC by about
$1.5 billion.
$2,000 in tax savings
labour supply response
$50,000 transfer
Total
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
These limits also affect the distributional outcomes
of the FTC, limiting the benefits for the highest
income households. Without a cap, FTC gains for the
90th percentile income households and above would
be more than twice the baseline (Figure A-1).
Conversely, FTC gains to the median income deciles
are not materially affected by the cap.
Under an uncapped FTC, PBO estimates that the FTC
would continue to have a small negative impact on
hours worked, but a positive impact on labour
income.
As shown in Figure 2-5, the cap is more binding on
households in which there exists a greater income
disparity between partners. This implies that
primary (secondary) earners with high (low) incomes
are more likely to be capped.
Figure A-1: Distributional impacts of the FTC limits
Per cent of after-tax income
0.7
140
Without a cap, PBO projects that primary earners
would increase labour supply by about 16,000 FTEs,
and $1.2 billion in additional labour income. The
corresponding secondary earner response would be
to reduce labour supply by about 23,000 FTEs and
$630 million in income (Table A-3 and A-4).
Uncapped
0.6
120
Baseline
0.5
100
% increase from
baseline
0.4
80
0.3
60
0.2
40
0.1
20
0.0
Households
585,000
50,000
7,000
642,000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
9
An exception would be for households which are capped at the margin
of FTC limits.
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
9
The Family Tax Cut
Table A-3: Cap impact: hours
Thousands of FTE equivalent annual hours
Capped
Primary Earners
7,000
Secondary Earners
-14,000
Net
-7,000
Figure A-5: Sensitivity of labour supply response to
relative elasticity of earners
Uncapped
16,000
-23,000
-7,000
Thousands of FTE equivalent annual hours
Primary
20
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
7
7
0
-10
Millions of dollars of labour income
Primary Earners
Secondary Earners
Net
13
10
Table A-4: Cap impact: income
Capped
360
-450
-90
Secondary
30
-14
-20
Uncapped
1,230
-630
600
-14
-30
-28
-40
Narrow (p=0.07, Baseline (p=0.035,
s=0.17)
s=0.17)
Wide (p=0.035
s=0.34)
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Scenario (p=Primary Elasticity, s=Secondary Elasticity)
In general, PBO’s labour supply estimates are
sensitive to:
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Figure A-6: Sensitivity of labour income response to
relative elasticity of earners
Millions of dollars of labour income
Primary
Millions
Labour supply estimate sensitivity
PBO estimates of the changes in hours and income
induced by the FTC are also sensitive to the
assumptions regarding the uncompensated wage
elasticity of workers.10 PBO’s baseline assumptions
are an elasticity of 0.035 for primary earners and
0.17 for secondary earners.
800
670
360
400
(i) the relative difference in responsiveness
between primary and secondary earners.
Greater responsiveness of secondary
earners, historically married women with
children, is a core empirical finding; and,
Secondary
1,200
360
0
-400
-800
-440
-890
-1,200
(ii) the level of responsiveness of both spouses’
labour supply decision.
-450
Narrow (p=0.07,
Baseline
Wide (p=0.035
s=0.17)
(p=0.035, s=0.17)
s=0.34)
A narrower (wider) gap in elasticities than the PBO
baseline has a positive (negative) impact on labour
supply compared to the status. If the elasticity of
the primary earner is doubled, while the secondary’s
held constant, there remains a small negative labour
supply impact on hours (Figure A-5) and a small
positive impact on labour income (Figure A-6).
Scenario (p=Primary Elasticity, s=Secondary Elasticity)
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
The magnitude of the FTC’s impacts on labour
supply is accentuated when the estimated
responsiveness of both spouses is increased. The
FTC also has a slightly more negative net impact on
hours (Figure A-7) and income (Figure A-8) because
the FTC cap constrains the behavioural response of
households with a larger earnings disparity.
10
See Annex B for a more detailed discussion of labour supply elasticity
assumptions.
10
The Family Tax Cut
Figure A-7: Sensitivity of labour supply response to
magnitude of elasticities
Sensitivity of explanatory variables affecting labour
market responsiveness
Thousands of FTE equivalent annual hours
Primary
The non-tax characteristics most correlated with
labour supply response are gender, the income
differential between earners, and the employment
income of an earner (Figure A-9).11
Secondary
40
30
20
13
10
Figure A-9: Correlation with labour supply response
7
4
Ordinary correlation coefficient
0
0.40
-10
-7
-20
0.35
-14
0.35
0.32
0.30
-30
-27
Half of Baseline
Baseline (p=0.035,
(p=0.0175,s=0.085)
s=0.17)
0.23
0.25
-40
Double Baseline
(p=0.07, s=0.34)
0.20
0.15
Scenario (p=Primary Elasticity, s=Secondary Elasticity)
0.10
0.06
0.05
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
0.02
0.00
Male
Figure A-8: Sensitivity of labour income response to
magnitude of elasticities
Millions of dollars of labour income
Millions
Primary
Education
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Comparison with a broad-based reduction in
personal income taxes
670
800
PBO also compares the impacts of the FTC to a
broad-based measure – a reduction of the statutory
rates on all income tax brackets by 30 basis points
(bp). The 30 basis point reduction (referred to in the
figures below as “PIT benchmark”) has a roughly
equivalent static fiscal impact as the FTC.
360
190
0
-400
Age
Secondary
1,200
400
Income Employment
Differential
Income
-230
-450
-800
Overall, the FTC’s impact is larger in magnitude than
the PIT benchmark for both earners. However,
changes in hours and labour income are uniformly
positive under the PIT benchmark as opposed to a
net negative impact under the FTC (Figures A-10 and
A-11).
-870
-1,200
Half of Baseline
Baseline (p=0.035,
(p=0.0175,s=0.085)
s=0.17)
Double Baseline
(p=0.07, s=0.34)
Scenario (p=Primary Elasticity, s=Secondary Elasticity)
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer.
11
These figures are ordinary partial correlations, meaning they do not
control for interdependence between variables.
11
The Family Tax Cut
Figure A-10: FTC vs. PIT benchmark
Thousands of FTE equivalent annual hours
FTC
PIT Benchmark
20
15
10
7
7
3
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-14
-20
Primary Earners
Secondary Earners
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer
Figure A-11: FTC vs. PIT benchmark
Millions of dollars of labour income
Millions
FTC
PIT Benchmark
900
600
300
360
280
190
0
-300
-600
-450
-900
Primary Earners
Secondary Earners
Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer
12
The Family Tax Cut
Annex B – Methodology & key assumptions
How income taxation affects the supply of labour
Box B-1: Average vs. marginal effective wages
A worker’s average effective wage is inversely proportional to their
average effective tax rate (AETR). For most workers, the tax
deductions on their pay cheque divided by their gross pay would
roughly correspond with their AETR.
Income taxes reduce effective wages (see Box B-1),
which lowers the gains from labour and raises the
relative value of non-work activities, such as leisure
or uncompensated household production.
(
A number of studies have found that workers are
responsive to changes to income taxes through the
wage channel.12 For example, workers may adjust
hours, effort or their participation in the labour
force entirely.
)
Similarily, a worker’s marginal effective wage on an additional hour
worked is inversely proportional to their marginal effective tax rate
(METR). For many workers, this would roughly correspond to the
highest income tax bracket reached during the year.
(
How does PBO estimate average and marginal
effective tax rates?
)
The per cent change in of a workers marginal effective wage
following a change in policy from METR1 to METR2 can be
calculated as follows:
The average effective tax rate is estimated as
income tax and other compulsory payments less
government transfers, divided by the sum of market
income.13,14
(
)
(
)
A 10 p.p. reduction in marginal tax rates will have a larger impact
on the marginal effective wage of a worker with a METR of 50%
(∆WAGE = 20%) than a worker with an METR of 20% (∆WAGE =
12.5%).
The marginal effective tax rate is estimated as the
incremental income tax (and other compulsory
payments less government transfers) due on an
additional $1,000 of employment income.
Source:
Parliamentary Budget Officer.
How does PBO calculate workers’ responsiveness
to wage changes?
PBO focuses on the marginal effective wage for
labour supply estimates because this is the rate at
which workers make the decision on whether to
supply one additional hour of labour.
The responsiveness of workers to changes in their
effective wage is measured through their
“uncompensated wage elasticity” (Box B-2).
Hereafter, this will be referred to as “elasticity”.15
PBO draws upon the results of a meta-study by
Evers, Mooij and Van Vuuren (2008) which analyzes
209 elasticity estimates from 30 empirical studies
over 1981 to 2007.16 The mean values of their
analyses are shown in Table B-3.
15
This elasticity represents the net effect of the substitution effect (a
worker supplies more (less) labour when they are paid more (less) to do
so) and income effect (a worker supplies less (more) labour because
under a higher (lower) wage, less (more) work is required to maintain a
given standard of living.
12
See OECD “Effects of Taxation on Employment: An Overview.” (2011),
Evers, Mooij and Van Vuuren (2008) and Bargain & Peichl (2013) for a
review and analysis of the literature.
13
Compulsory payments include Employment Insurance, benefits
repayments and the Canada (Quebec) Pension Plan.
16
The authors aim to contribute a synthesis of research results on the
size of elasticities to be used in policy analysis. Their findings are
consistent with another meta-study by Bargain & Peichl (2013).
14
Market income includes income from employment, investments,
pensions and other sources.
13
The Family Tax Cut
This practice is consistent with the United States
Congressional Budget Office (CBO).18
Box B-2: Uncompensated wage elasticity
PBO uses elasticities of 0.035 for primary earners
and 0.17 for secondary earners, which are equal to
half of the averages derived by Evers, Mooij and Van
Vuuren (2008).
The uncompensated wage elasticity (UWE) follows the standard
economic definition of elasticity, measuring the per cent change in
hours worked when the marginal effective wage increases by 1 per
cent.
(
Source:
)
This follows Finance Canada analysis on the
responsiveness of taxable income to changes in
marginal tax rates, which suggests that Canadians’
behavioural responsiveness is roughly half that of
international counterparts.19
Parliamentary Budget Officer.
There is considerable literature devoted to
estimating this elasticity. Although there is
uncertainty over the exact values for different
workers, there is a general consensus that
elasticities for men and single women are positive
and close to zero, while the elasticities for married
women are much higher than those of men. This is
attributed to the following factors:
PBO maintains a gap between the elasticity of
primary and secondary earners for the following
reasons:
(i) applying the elasticities by relative earnings
instead of gender controls for some of the
convergence in responsiveness between men
and women, as a greater number of women are
primary earners than in the past;
(i) traditional division of labour market within the
family including greater responsibilities for
women for childcare and home production; and,
(ii) when controlling for increasing female
participation and time trends, studies confirm a
gap between the elasticities of primary and
secondary earners within households; and,
(ii) secondary earners, by definition, face a lower
opportunity cost of devoting time to non-work
activities and are more likely to work in jobs that
are part-time or allow for flexibility in hours
worked.
(iii) FTC-eligible households are comprised entirely
of married or common-law secondary earners
with children. They are more responsive than
those without children.
Table B-3: International average elasticities
How does PBO estimate the effect of the FTC on
the aggregate supply of labour?
Mean value
Mean elasticity
Men
Women
0.07
0.34
PBO follows closely the methodology of the CBO for
estimating static labour supply outcomes in
response to changes in tax policy.20
Source: Evers, Mooij and Van Vuuren (2008) meta-analysis of over 30
empirical studies over 1981-2007. Outliers are excluded.
The labour supply response of each of worker, as
measured by the change in their annual hours and
income, is calculated using the per cent change in
their marginal effective wage and the worker’s
corresponding elasticity (Box B-4). Changes in hours
Elasticities of women have declined over time in line
with their stronger attachment to the labour force.17
Therefore, PBO does not distinguish workers by sex,
but instead uses the elasticities of men for primary
earners and married women for secondary earners.
18
CBO, 2012. “How the Supply of Labour responds to Changes in
Taxation.”
19
Finance Canada, 2010. “The Response of Individuals to Changes in
Marginal Income Tax Rates.”
20
Congressional Budget Office, 2012. “How the Supply of Labour
Responds to Changes in Fiscal Policy.”
17
Blau & Kahn, 2006. “Changes in the Labor Supply Behavior
of Married Women: 1980-2000.”
14
The Family Tax Cut
and income at the individual level are aggregated to
produce an estimate of the static change in labour
supply across the economy.
Box B-4: Aggregate labour supply response
Re-arranging the formula from Box B-2, the labour supply response
of a given worker, measured in hours worked per year, is
determined by multipying the per cent change in the marginal
effecitve wage by the worker’s labour supply elasticity and by the
total hours worked per year:
The impact on the aggregate labour supply is the sum of individual
responses. This represents a static, steady state impact of the hours
workers are willing to work given before-tax wage rates and
aggregate demand:
∑
The change in labour income is determined by multipying the
change in hours induced by each workers gross hourly wage rate.
Individual changes are aggregated to produce a total estimate.
Source:
Parliamentary Budget Officer
Such impacts do not account for second order
effects relating to the dynamic adjustments of the
economy. According to the OECD, a microeconomic
approach is preferable to account for the
heterogeneity of workers and to fully capture the
nuances of tax policy changes.21
Nevertheless, this microanalysis should not be
considered a comprehensive forecast of the change
in actual hours worked in the economy as a whole.
The latter is determined by the forces of labour
supply and demand, including adjustments to gross
wage rates and aggregate demand.
21
OECD “The Effects of Taxation on Employment: An Overview” (2011)
15
The Family Tax Cut
References
Bargain, Olivier; Peichl, Andreas, 2013. “Steady-state
labor supply elasticities: A survey.
“http://www.zew.de/en/publications/7158
Blau, Francine D., Kahn, Lawrence M., 2006.
“Changes in the labour supply elasticity of married
women: 1980-2000.” http://ftp.iza.org/dp2180.pdf
Congressional Budget Office, 2012. “How the
Supply of Labour Responds to Changes in Fiscal
Policy.” www.cbo.gov/sites/.../10-25-2012Labor_Supply_and_Fiscal_Policy.pdf
Evers, Michiel; De Mooij, Ruud; and Van Vuuren,
Daniel, 2008. “The wage elasticity of labour supply:
a synthesis of empirical estimates.”
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/738/art%2
53A10.1007%252Fs10645-007-9080z.pdf?auth66=1424199824_0f7f1f765233e352c3f43
342f04e3e32&ext=.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), 2011. “Taxation and
Employment.” Chapter 1, pages 28-32.
http://www.oecd.org/ctp/48859441.pdf
Parliamentary Budget Officer, 2010. “Estimating
Potential GDP and the Government’s Structural
Budget Balance.”
http://www.pbodpb.gc.ca/files/files/Publications/Potential_CABB_E
N.pdf
Statistics Canada, 2014. The Social Policy Simulation
Database and Model (SPSD/M) v. 21.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/microsimulation/sps
dm/spsdm.
16